1 / 27

Miranda Miranda Miguel Osaka University

Miranda Miranda Miguel Osaka University. Interaction within immersive virtual environments through a See-through interface implemented on a PDA. 2008 International Workshop on Ubiquitous Virtual Reality. Outline. Previous studies. Our approach. Description of a prototype. Pilot study.

hesper
Download Presentation

Miranda Miranda Miguel Osaka University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Miranda Miranda Miguel Osaka University Interaction within immersive virtual environments through a See-through interface implemented on a PDA 2008 International Workshop on Ubiquitous Virtual Reality

  2. Outline • Previous studies • Our approach • Description of a prototype • Pilot study • Discussion and results • Future work

  3. Interaction 3 How to select and manipulate virtual objects in a CAVE? http://www.es.jamstec.go.jp/esc/research/Perception/vr.en.html

  4. Interfaces using a beam 4 • Trackers are manipulated with 6 DOF • 3D objects are prone to occlusions • Manipulation does not provide feedback information (touch) http://www.jvrb.org/articles/34/

  5. Problems 5 Interaction in a virtual environment is difficult: • Unstable spatial manipulation • No physical contact • Ambiguous depth perception • Unreadable text information • (Generally) Low resolution • Virtual widgets are not necessarily easy to manipulate • No physical contact • (Sometimes) Weak affordance

  6. Previous studies (1/2) 6 • Toolglass and Magic Lenses[1] • 3D Magic Lenses[2] [1] Eric A. Bier, Maureen C. Stone, Ken Pier, William Buxton D. DeRose (1993) [2] J. Viega, M. J. Conway, G. Williams, R. Pausch (1996)

  7. Previous studies (2/2) 7 • Image Plane Interaction Technique[3] [3] J. S. Pierce, A. Forsberg, M. J. Conway, S. Hong, R. Zeleznik, M. R. Mine. (1997)

  8. Our approach 8 • Employ a mobile device for interaction in an immersive environment

  9. Advantage of our approach (1/2) 9 • Built-in controls • A PDA is equipped with integrated controls that afford the interaction with the environment • Built-in display • The displayed image can be manipulated, processed and even stored for later reference

  10. Advantage of our approach (2/2) 10 • Physical contact • The screen surface can be touched directly • The interface is contained in the PDA • Programmable • GUI / button functions are changeable • Examples: • Through the lens tool • Volumetric manipulation tool

  11. Architecture of the system 11 Tracking System Rendering server - Render the image for the PDA compress decompress Jpeg compressed Image. UDP/IP Commands. TCP/IP

  12. Implementation (1/2) 12 • The prototype was programmed in a portable framework, VR Juggler that supports : • Most widely used operating systems Linux, Windows, Mac OSX, Irix, FreeBSD. • Several trackers and display devices (HiBall, Flock of birds, Trackd, projectors, monitors, CAVE walls).

  13. Prototype implementation (2/2) 13

  14. Through the lens interface 14

  15. Selecting 3D objects 15 Selecting 3D objects • Direct selection: • The user selects the target object directly on the PDA screen • Indirect selection: • User searches for a comfortable view • User takes a snapshot • User selects the object from the snapshot

  16. Direct selection 16

  17. Indirect selection 17

  18. Pilot study - Setup 18 Experimental task: Target selection task Independent variables: • Type of selection: Direct, Beam, PDA • Layout: Dependent variables: Task completion time, Number of errors, Preferences • Sparse layout: • 30 cm separation, 72 cubes • Dense layout: • 10 cm separation, 504 cubes

  19. The pilot studio (1/3) 19 Direct selection

  20. The pilot studio (2/3) 20 Beam selection

  21. The pilot studio (3/3) 21 PDA selection

  22. Results (1) 22 2nd trial Overall 1st trial 3rd trial 2nd trial Overall 1st trial 3rd trial Average time for completion task (sparse) Average time for completion task (dense) • On Sparse layout PDA interface was most difficult to use at first, but after 2 trial became the easiest one. • On Dense layout unexpectedly we found Beam got a better performance than PDA. • The number of errors do not show significant difference.

  23. Observations 23 • Users require some time to adapt to our interface for use it effectively. • We noticed that users did not use the snapshot selection method. Instead of it, they tried to approach the target.

  24. Results (2) 24 It was easy to select the object? Dense Sparse Selecting objects with this interface is natural? Dense Sparse

  25. Conclusions 25 • We implemented a PDA-based see-through interface for an immersive environment • Users found our interface more natural for selecting objects than direct and beam interfaces (not statistically supported)

  26. Future use of the interface 26 • Supporting navigation using teleporting windows[6]. • Clipboard tool (cut and paste) [6] K. Hirose, T. Ogawa, K. Kiyokawa and H. Takemura. （2006）

  27. Thank you!! • Discussions & More information • Cybermedia Center, Toyonaka Educational Research Center 5F Osaka University 1-32 Machikaneyama, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, Japan • Tel. (081) 06-6850-6899 • Fax. (081) 06-6850-6829 • mailto: miranda.miguel@ime.cmc.osaka-u.ac.jp • Web: http://www.lab.ime.cmc.osaka-u.ac.jp

More Related